An extremist, not a fanatic

June 29, 2016

Demystifying leaders

The search for a new England manager, new Tory leader and perhaps new Labour leader too brings an under-appreciated question into focus: what exactly can leadership achieve?

In the Times today, Matthew Syed decries the “ludicrous idea that everything would be well if only we could find a new messiah.” He’s talking about the England manager’s job, but the words fit a lot of people’s attitudes to the Labour leadership: Tories, I sense, are slightly more sensible.

This messiah complex is what I’ve called cargo cult thinking, the sort of thing that goes like this:

Leadership

?????

Success.

People don’t fill in the ?????. They assume that the new messiah will perform some ju-ju and success will follow. They don’t ask the question which the late great Andrew Glyn drummed into us: what’s the mechanism?

I’d suggest three broad correctives to this messiah syndrome.

First, remember that what matters is the match, not just the man. Compare Louis van Gaal and Claudio Ranieri. Two years ago, van Gaal had by far the more impressive CV, with league titles in three countries and a Champions League medal. But Ranieri was a glorious success at Leicester whilst van Gaal suffered at Manyoo. The reason? Ranieri turned out to be a great match with City’s squad, whilst van Gaal never fitted in.

The point generalizes. Boris Groysberg studied the fortunes of managers who moved from GM – generally regarded as a great training ground for bosses – to other firms. He found (pdf) that where the manager was a good fit for the new company he did well but where he wasn’t, the firm suffered. This is despite the managers appearing equally competent beforehand. For example, if a firm needs to cut costs it shouldn’t hire a marketing man, but if it needs to manage expansion it shouldn’t hire an axeman. As the cliché goes, you need round pegs in round holes.

When we’re looking for a leader, we must ask: what exactly is the defect we are trying to address? For England manager, it seems to be a need to overcome the mental block that so often strikes players in big tournaments - what Vincent Kompany calls the “psychological event” that afflicted the team against Iceland.

For Labour, I’d contend, it is a need to unite the PLP and grassroots. This requires emollience, charisma and person-management skills rather than a talent for policy development, because in the economic sphere at least this has been going well.

Whether such good matches are discovered by skilful hiring or by dumb luck is another question.

Secondly, we must remember that, as Nick Bloom and colleagues say, management is a technology (pdf). Those ????? are processes whereby performance is monitored and feedback gathered to enable the aggregation of marginal gains. We should ask of leaders: what processes have you put in place to facilitate improvement? It could be that the best such processes require less "strong leadership" and more decentralized or collegiate decision-making - although such a view is outside the Overton window.

The third principle is to be aware of the force for good and ill of organizational capital. Some organizations are so structurally weak that pretty much no manager can turn them around. As Warren Buffett said:

When a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for bad economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact.

This could well be England’s problem. Fifty years of hurt under all different types of boss hint at deep structural problems; Matthew is right to say that it is the system that has failed. The same might be true of any Labour leader. Given the hostile ideological climate, (alleged?) splits between social conservatives and metropolitan liberals and a declining class base, it might be that nobody can be a truly successful leader now.

You might think this is a post about leadership. It’s not. It’s about inequality. Matthew says that it’s no coincidence that Roy Hodgson was paid more than any other manager at the European finals. He's right. High pay for bosses arises from the messiah complex we have about them – from the superstitious nonsense that the best man will put everything right. Perhaps demystifying management and leadership would be one small step towards more sensible levels of pay and hence towards less inequality.

Comments

As I watched a succession of pundits decry the lack of passion of the England players.. after a game during which they had been tactically outclassed by a side who limited England's threat potential to set pieces (which English players are notoriously bad at) it was very clear that the problem is structural. The entire industry has been missing the point for decades. Nearly everyone involved in English professional football still thinks that Steven Gerard was a good player.

I get the same feeling from watching political commentary, but I don't know who British politics' equivalent of Gerard is.

Agree, wholeheartedly. Most successful enterprises are actually about teamwork. And there is such a thing as followership as well as leadership. I judged the success of my career by the number of times I got my boss promoted. Messiah complex is dangerous for organisations.

I think there is a justification (or at least s reason) for high pay as an England manager. Anyone taking it knows it is their last football job, because they will fail. So if you have any sort of reputation, you want a good pay-off.

@ Michael - agree entirely: management is about the hard yards of administration & implementation. "Leadership" is apt to neglect these.
@ The Thought Gang - Absolutely. If I had my way, I would shoot anyone who complains about players or managers lacking "passion".

Where to start with English football, and it's been like this for years ... Just a few of the many things that come to mind.

1. English players are ludicrously over-hyped. For some reason they attract premium prices, and premium wages. So they end up with an over-inflated view of themselves.

2. Few play abroad. It means their entire career is mainly played in English high pace bagatelle football. When they do come across a more foreign game, it's the foreigners that are bought that unlock the opposition.

3. English players are largely one trick monkeys. They lack the intelligence to adapt their game to circumstances.

4. Chances come thick and fast in the Premiership. It makes strikers lazy.

... etc., etc.

I rather enjoy international tournaments. Taking players out of their club comfort zones means that the abilities of the manager and players to create a team are tested to the maximum. Iceland remind me of the Greece team that won the tournament. Belgium are another team of good players but no team.

Both England and the Labour Party are relatively small organisations. Does that mean their leader can be a messiah in a way that a CEO of a large organisation employing thousands can't.

Yes, Labour has a lot of members, but they're more like customers than staff. And revenue is only a few million.

So maybe you should look at small business leaders for comparison rather than ex-Ford managers? Is running Labour or English football more like running a medium-sized corner shop than a blue-chip enterprise?

I disagree with regard to the players. England's style of football is little different to other footballing nations, and the players are faced with, and play with loads of foreign players in their domestic league. Player for player they compare well with other countries, in theory at least. Regular starters for Italy such as Giaccherini and Pelle would not have got in England's squad, and possibly one of the Iceland team (Gylfi Sigurdsson).

One of the problems is management in this case (unlike in politics). Other countries play to a set strategy and style, playing to their strengths and picking players in form. Hodgson chopped and changed constantly, it was difficult to see what kind of tactics he was adopting, and he left out in form players such as Drinkwater in favour of Wilshere, who hadn't played all season! He also has been afraid to make difficult decisions, like axing Rooney and Hart, whose best days are behind them, or giving Rashford more of a chance, who could have replicated Owen's impact at France in 1998.

I'd agree partially about management. Hodgson never seemed to be sure of the system to play, and fell into the final system when Dier came through during the season. Even then he seemed unsure about how exactly to implement it.

But I stand by my comments about players. The point is that they *only* play in English football, and even the Premiership is a bagatelle game compared with other major leagues. Foreign players are brought up in a different environment, and the best are still able to adapt and operate in our frenetic leagues (though many don't).

For example compare to Bale and his influence on the Welsh team. He has matured well in Spain, is intelligent, not egotistical, and uses that to enhance a team performance (and Coleman is a better manager ...).

Players like Hoddle, Waddle and Keegan improved the England team immeasurably because they played abroad.

People should remember what Germany have done since the debacle at Euro 2004. Klinsmann didn't just take over the team, he insisted of restructuring the whole DFB international team setup (including the juniors). The German system has thrived with continuity and close co-operation with the clubs (the responsibility of Bierhof), in spite of very low birth rates reducing the flow the youngsters.